link to Talbot Project home page link to De Montfort University home page link to Glasgow University home page
Project Director: Professor Larry J Schaaf
 

Back to the letter search >

Result number 20 of 30:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >  

Document number: 5134
Date: 28 Oct 1847
Dating: based on draft version
Recipient: ESTCOURT Thomas Henry Sutton Sotheron Bucknall
Author: TALBOT William Henry Fox
Collection: British Library, London, Manuscripts - Fox Talbot Collection
Collection number: / 32816
Collection number historic: LA45-003 & draft LA47-087
Last updated: 1st September 2003

London <1>

28 Oct 47

The following is a brief statement of my reasons for differing in opinion from the Solicitor of the Railway Compy respecting the amount of purchase money payable to me for lands taken by the Railway –

Mr Brunel <2> on the part of the Company made an agreement with me, to pay not less than 240 £ per acre, being the sum he was to pay Ld Methuen. <3> But a referee, Mr Easton, was to say whether they ought to pay me more than this, or not.

Mr Easton gave this award; that about 9 acres on Wickfarm <4> were worth 260 £ per acre, and the rest of the land 200 £ per acre –

With respect to the latter part of this award, the Compy admit that they are bound by their Agreement to pay me 240 £ per acre, but they claim on the other hand to reduce the part valued by Mr Easton at 260 £ to the same standard of 240 £ – which appears to me to be incorrect –

It may be said, that the Agreement ought to be explained in a manner equally favorable to both parties, but such was not the intention of Mr Brunel in framing it, for he purposely threw in, as a kind of makeweight this additional chance in my favour, that if the Referee put a higher value on the land, such higher value should be paid – Accordingly, the Referee having valued 9 acres of the land at 260 £, I claim from the Company that value for those acres – But the Compy are of opinion that Mr Easton made an award of £234,, 1,, 11d per acre; that is not his award but a calculation which he makes, founded upon his award, which he had stated previously – And this calculation has now ceased to be true, in consequence of the Compy having purchased from me a somewhat different quantity of land, both at Wickfarm & elsewhere, from that contemplated by Mr Easton – Introducing the correct quantity of land, the sum of 234. 1. 11 is no longer the true average value of it, that is to say, such an average value is no longer consistent with what Mr E. had stated to be his award.

I therefore consider that Mr E. did not intend 234. 1. 11 to be taken as his award, but as a mere calculation which he has appended to it – Nor do I think that a Referee in a case of this kind would award a fractional sum per acre, at least not such a fraction as 234. 1. 11 – Nor can a Referee make two different awards about the same matter as would be the case here, if we take the latter sum 234. 1. 11 to be an award, as well as the former one (of 260 £ and 200 £) for they are not consistent with each other.

Mr Easton’s true award therefore was, in my opinion – part at 260, and part at 200 –

The question therefore is; whether, the Referee having valued 9 acres of the land at 260 £ I am entitled or not under the agreement which I made with Brunel to claim that value from the Company.

<author’s draft>

Sotheron

London

28 Oct 47

Ye follg is a brief Stt of my reasn for diffg in opinn from ye Solr of ye R.Cy respg ye amt of ochase My to the farmland taken by ye Rlwy – Mr Brunel on the part of ye Company made an agrt wth me, to pay not less than 240 £ per acre, being the sum he was to pay Ld M.

(A) but a n referee Mr E was to say whether they ought to pay me more than this or not. Mr E. gave this award: that abt 9 acres on Wickfarm were worth 260 £ per acre, & the rest of ye land 200 £ per acre – with respect to the latter f And this I consider to be Mr Easton’s award on the subject.

With respect to the latter part of this award they the Company admit that they are bound by their agreemt to pay me 240 £ an acre, but they claim on the other hand to reduce the part valued by Mr E at 260 £ to the same standard of 240 £ wch appears to me as to be incorrect.

It may be said that the agreemt ought to be explained in a manner equally favorable to both parties; but such was not ye intention of Mr Brunel in framing the agreemt it for but he purposely threw in as a kind of makeweight this additl chance in my favour, that if the Referee see mt give a higher valu ation e on the land, such higher value shd be paid accordingly. The Referee having valued 9 acres of the land at 260 £ I claim from the Company that value for those acres.

But the Company are of opinion that Mr Easton made an award of 234. 1. 11. per acre; which signi they are willing to pay: or to speak more correctly they are willing to pay 240 £ on the whole of ye land but no more on any part of it. But it appears to me that when Mr Easton speaks of 234. 1. 11 that is not his award but a calculn which he makes, founded upon his award which he had stated before.

for the following reasons

a calculation whi In It is evidt that And this <illegible deletion> calculation, <illegible deletion> has now ceased to be true, in consequence of the company having purchased from me a somewhat difft quantity of land both at Wick farm and elsewhere, <illegible deletion> from that contemplated by Mr Easton – Introducing the correct quantity of land, the Sum of 234. 1. 11 is no longer the true average value of it, but <illegible> other sum must be substituted which makes this that is to say such an average value is no longer consistent with what Mr E had stated to be his award.

I therefore consider that Mr E did not intend to make an award of 234. 1. 11 to be taken as his award, but as a 1st because it is incons mere calculation which he has appended to it

1st because it <illegible> to be consistent with what he had said before; except in the case of the quantities of land purchased being precisely those at first contemplated

2d because I think such a fractional sum ending with 1s 11d could not as I think have been intended by any Referee to be taken as his award in a case of this kind

Mr E not being acquainted

Nor do I think that a Referee in a case of this kind would fix upon award a fractional sum per acre at least not such a fraction as 234. 1. 11.

Nor do I think can a Referee make 2 different awards about the same matter, as would be the case here, if we take the latter sum 234. 1. 11 to be an award as well as the former one (of 260 £ and 200 £) for I therefore they are not consistent “ I view as it as a calculation only, & I <illegible> if so, immaterial to the questn<illegible> true award therefore was in my opinion – part at 260 & part at 200

Ye only questn therefore this, whether, the Referee having valued 9 acres of the land (A) the <illegible> at the <illegible> of of 260 £ I am entitled or not under the agreement wch I made with Brunel, to claim that value from the Company.


Notes:

1. Sender’s address and date derive from author’s draft.

2. Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859), civil engineer.

3. Paul Methuen, Baron Methuen (1779–1849), MP.

4. Wick Farm, Lacock, Wiltshire.

Result number 20 of 30:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >